vmiklos added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-rename/tool/ClangRename.cpp:65
@@ +64,3 @@
+
+ RenameAllInfo() : Offset(0) {}
+};
----------------
omtcyfz wrote:
> omtcyfz wrote:
> > vmiklos wrote:
> > > omtcyfz wrote:
> > > > AFAIK there's no need to do that, integer types are by default
> > > > initialized with 0, aren't they?
> > > Are you sure? Here is a minimal version that shows what goes wrong when
> > > that's not initialized explicitly: http://pastebin.com/raw/2ZsUgWf6 The
> > > "Use of uninitialised value of size 8" goes away with an explicit
> > > initialization.
> > Well, in this case - yes. But in that case the default unsigned constructor
> > isn't called.
> >
> > What I meant is:
> >
> > ```
> > RenameAllInfo() : Offset(0) {}
> > ```
> > - >
> > ```
> > RenameAllInfo() : Offset() {}
> > ```
> >
> > In this case Offset is default-constructed. However, it is also true that
> > one might argue that it's less "trivial" (whatever "triviality" definition
> > would be :]). I guess it's fine to leave it like this.
> > Well, in this case - yes. But in that case the default unsigned constructor
> > isn't called.
>
> <to prevent confusion>
>
> -> Well, in the case you sent - yes. But there is no default-construction
> there as there is no constructor with initializer list at all.
Ah, I see what you mean. :-) I don't mind either way, but then I'll leave it
as-is for now.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D23198
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
